What I Think About the Hebdo Attack

First off, the Charlie Hebdo drawings are rather crude and not at all to my taste.

Secondly, to call this an attack upon free speech when we’re decades into Political Correctness in the West is an absurdity.

Third, One might like to think that such a brazen crime as this will wake people up, but it won’t: we’ll have our candle light vigils and our hand wringing…and maybe someone will lob a few missiles in the general direction of Islamists, somewhere; but we won’t actually face up to the facts. To do so would call forth a whole series of very inconvenient things which would distract politicians from grafting, corporations from squeezing profits and average folks from watching mindless television programs.

One thing that caught my eye over the course of the day was the furious reaction – mostly on the right, as far as I can tell – to the head of the Catholic League’s statement on the matter. To quote a bit:

…While some Muslims today object to any depiction of the Prophet, others do not. Moreover, visual representations of him are not proscribed by the Koran. What unites Muslims in their anger against Charlie Hebdo is the vulgar manner in which Muhammad has been portrayed. What they object to is being intentionally insulted over the course of many years. On this aspect, I am in total agreement with them…

That is bound to make people mad. Partially because it appears to excuse the killers (though it doesn’t actually do that, if you read the whole thing), partially because lots of people are dead and we’re supposed to be agog at the heroism of Charlie Hebdo from now on.

Charlie Hebdo did create some rather vulgar depictions of a lot of things – including Catholic things. Of course, vulgar depictions of Christians of any sort are common in popular media. Its a sort of go-to thing for anyone wanting to (safely) make a name for themselves as transgressive. Sure, when you insult a Christian there might be a Christian or two who complains, but its not like Christians are going to kill you over it. To give a bit of credit to Charlie Hebdo, the insults were directed a lot of people, including Muslims – in a world where most people walk on eggshells around Muslim issues, that says something. But, it also doesn’t excuse crude insults.

Just to make myself clear: a person is not properly exercising his or her right to free speech when they are hurling an insult. To be sure, such things happen – and no one possessed of their wits will ever try to prevent someone from saying something because it might be insulting. But, here’s the thing: our entire Western world does precisely that. And, yes, that does make us rather witless. We’re making Charlie Hebdo into a hero for being ecumenically insulting but we’ll drive out of corporate America a person who once donated to a pro-traditional marriage cause. Yeah, that makes sense. People at Charlie Hebdo abuse the privilege of free speech and it is accounted heroic – someone properly exercises their right to free speech and he’s socially unacceptable. Am I the only one who sees a problem here?

My guess is that my more libertarian friends would say that both Charlie Hebdo and the corporate boss should have been left alone. And they would be right for saying that. Still, one man was fired for quietly expressing his opinion, the other were people gainfully employed for loudly shouting insults.

The drawings of Charlie Hebdo remind me of nothing so much as a the crude pictures in the anti-Semitic Der Sturmer; they shouldn’t have been printed in any decent publication in the world. If you have something to say against, then it is your bound duty to say it in a manner which provides information in a non-insulting manner. Like most social duties, this cannot be enforced; as per usual, being decent is something which pretty much has to be done voluntarily. If someone wants to wallow in the gutter, there’s not much anyone can do about it. But such people aren’t being brave or heroic – they’re just being jerks. Additionally, if something can’t be said politely then it is probably at least partially incorrect on factual grounds.

At the end of the day, Charlie Hebdo should have found different themes to draw upon. They could well have used art to provoke discussion – including discussion about the very serious problems the world confronts in Islamic radicalism. In a very small way, the world would be a better place had things gone like that. Of course, the Hebdo massacre could well have been done by Islamists for even carefully reasoned and polite criticism of Islam – the Islamist enemy is like that. But the old saw is that it costs nothing to be polite – and it can cost a lot to be insulting. Better, on the whole, to be polite.

Freedom is the ability to freely choose to do the right thing, or it is nothing. We know that shooting up a news office is not the right thing and thus anyone who uses his God-given right of choice to do such a thing has done wrong. I am hopeful that most people will also hold that insulting people is to freely choose to do the wrong thing – not nearly as wrong as killing, of course, but still wrong. Anyone out there want to lay odds on who will win in a fight between those who want to insult and those who want to kill those who insult?

The fight, I think, would have a different outcome if the Islamists were confronted with people who firmly but politely stated their views and demonstrated their willingness to kill or die for them.

(Ed Note: Updated to make it clear that Charlie Hebdo is a magazine, not a person. My excuse is that it was late at night and the original concept of this was to write specifically about Stéphane Charbonnier, but I felt that was to get too personal into it and re-worked the whole article…but forgetting that I was talking about a magazine, not a person. Sorry for being a bonehead. Not the first time it happened, won’t be the last!)

29 thoughts on “What I Think About the Hebdo Attack

  1. Retired Spook January 8, 2015 / 12:38 pm

    Freedom is the ability to freely choose to do the right thing, or it is nothing.

    I’m not sure where I heard or read it, or if I just came by it on my own, but I have, for as long as I can remember, believed in a distinction between freedom and liberty. It may well stem from the famous line in the 1972 hit song “Me and Bobby McGee”: “freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.” I look at freedom as being able to do whatever you want, regardless of the consequences, while liberty is freedom with responsibility and accountability. That said, what Hebdo did, IMO, was akin to stand on the U.S./Mexico border and shouting epithets at armed drug cartel thugs. Just my 2 cents.

    • M. Noonan January 8, 2015 / 12:42 pm

      That is a good way to look at it – but we, as a people, look at it wrong…and so ol’ Hef is able to peddle his wares without let or hindrance from anyone, while pointing out salient facts about Ferguson will get you hounded as a racist. It is really rather sad.

      As to your example of shouting at the cartels – I recall a story from my childhood and there was this one kid we all knew who was a bit of a loud mouth…upon a time he allegedly shouted some racial epithets at a passing car of Latino gentlemen who, as it turned out, took umbrage about it and did some damage. I don’t recall anyone being remotely sympathetic.

  2. tiredoflibbs January 8, 2015 / 1:15 pm

    Guys, if it were any other religion and the followers took exception to what was said, drawn, or sculpted, those on the left would not be as restrained in their rhetoric to those non-Muslim assailants than they are now toward the Muslim terrorists …oh freedom fighters.

    Remember, we have to “understand their rage”*.

    *Maxine Waters justifying the riots in LA after the trial of the police officers who arrested Rodney King after he was speeding and ATTACKED one of the police officers.

    • Retired Spook January 8, 2015 / 1:37 pm

      Remember, we have to “understand their rage”*.

      There’s a difference between “understanding” someone’s rage and sanctioning it. I think often many on the Left don’t grasp that difference.

      I think, for anyone paying even the slightest bit of attention, it’s pretty clear that there are two possible roads ahead. Either Islam needs to go through a reformation and join the society of man, or there is going to be a bloody conflict until one side completely vanquishes the other. I don’t have a great deal of confidence in the former occurring any time soon, and all of us should dread, but be prepared for the latter.

      • M. Noonan January 8, 2015 / 2:06 pm

        Curiously enough, Hillaire Belloc – writing in the 1920’s – pointed out the problem and the threat of Islam…and he was writing in the post-WWI era when the only fully independent Muslim nation in the world was Turkey. He pointed out that for all its problems, Islam still convinced people to fight and die for it, while in the West people were not fully prepared to fight and die for their own beliefs.

        There is a little hope on the Islam side – the recent speech by the President of Egypt does give some hope as he pointed out that Islam can’t be the group that goes around killing people who say or do things Muslims don’t like.

  3. Cluster January 8, 2015 / 8:31 pm

    Remember the slaughter of all the school children in Pakistan? I think, or at least I hope, that the recent radical islamist violence which is becoming more savage, more brutal, and more sub human may finally force the “moderate” muslims to speak out. At least I think they had better do because these recent incidences are strengthening the resolve of the civilized world to defeat it. I only hope we had a President that called radical islam for what it is and galvanize the coalition, because it just may be there too galvanize.

    I share Dennis Miller’s sentiments when he said, and I paraphrase, that the moderate muslims had better to start clean their own house, or the world might just do it for them and that will be messy.

    • M. Noonan January 9, 2015 / 12:37 am

      If there are moderate Muslims, they are cowed – think about it: if our own people self-censor out of fear of retaliation, imagine how it must be for the people living next door to the Islamists.

  4. shawny2011 January 8, 2015 / 10:06 pm

    Dying for ones beliefs is not the worst way to go and with the threats and attempted bombing, they knew the consequences of their actions. Perhaps the bigger picture is that their message is not lost on the rest of the world (including Muslims) who must decide whether to be fearful, subjugated, silenced by the minority of Muslim extremists or set an example of our own faith and beliefs and what the consequences of attempting to persecute or crucify us for them will be. Following our leadership in denial is suicidal for our culture and for our children. They have promised to destroy us.

  5. shawny2011 January 9, 2015 / 5:06 am

    In every country where Muslims are in the minority, they are obsessed with minority rights.
    In every country with a Muslim majority, …..there are no minority rights.

  6. Retired Spook January 9, 2015 / 8:33 am

    In his weekly column at Personal Liberty, Ben Crystal nails it.

    It’s worth noting that by making special allowances to protect Muhammad’s evidently thin skin, the world is essentially saying Muslims lack the ability to behave according to modern civilization’s basic rules.


    • shawny2011 January 9, 2015 / 4:57 pm

      A German journalist who spent 10 days embedded with ISIS in Iraq last month warned that the group is planning to kill “hundreds of millions” of non-believers in “the largest religious cleansing in the history of mankind”.

      Jurgen Todenhofer said he was surprised by “the enthusiasm in their plan of religious cleansing, planning to kill the non-believers.” “These were very difficult discussions, especially when they were talking about the number of people who they are ready to kill. They were talking about hundreds of millions,” he told Al Jazeera.

      Those targeted for execution include moderate Muslims who approve of democracy, since ISIS believes they put human law ahead of the will of Allah.

      “150 million, 200 million or 500 million, it does not matter to us,” the journalist says one ISIS fighter told him. “We will kill them all.”

      • M. Noonan January 9, 2015 / 6:01 pm

        They believe. Do we believe in anything? On that will turn who wins.

  7. shawny2011 January 9, 2015 / 5:22 pm

    The goals reminded me very much of those of another group whose “Allah” was communism.

  8. Cluster January 9, 2015 / 9:13 pm

    I don’t know about anyone else but I am sick and tired of talking about Muslims. I can’t believe this shit is still going on and that the civilized world hasn’t done anything about it. Remember the commuter train blown up in Spain a few years ago, or the attacks in London over the past few years? Why do we continue to be surprised by these attacks? They have been going on for years and they won’t stop until “we” get up off our ass and do something about it.

  9. Amazona January 9, 2015 / 9:44 pm

    It is hard to retaliate against a group which finds most forms of retaliation to be a reward for their bad acts. Death is a gift, as it is seen as noble, as martydom. Imprisonment is an empty threat, with spineless Lefties making prisons more like country clubs, while at the same time lobbying for the prisoners to be released—it is kind of Martyrdom Lite.

    Perhaps we could name five of the most radical mosques in the United States and say that if we are attacked and there is compelling evidence the perpetrators were acting in the name of Islam within a week those mosques will be shut down, their members sent to their nations of origin (even if they were born here) and the buildings burnt to the ground. We have to have an “ouch” and it has to hit them where it hurts. It would be no great thing to assemble a list of those who attend these mosques, and even if most of them were to go into hiding the fact that they were targeted for permanent removal from the United States would be uncomfortable. Another attack—another five mosques.

    This would force the so-called “moderate” Muslims to publicly choose non-violent mosques for their worship, knowing that any mosque in which hatred and violence are preached will be put on the list for sudden and permanent destruction when Muslim savages attack. So we would need to start with federal legislation allowing the immediate negation of American citizenship, and deportation, for belonging to anti-American groups that preach the overthrow of the nation and the murder of its citizens. A few dozen 777s packed with handcuffed Muslims headed for Syria or wherever would make the newbies who think they are so tough think it over.

    We know that the so-called “moderate” Muslims will never stand up to these butchers, and no, I do not buy into the claim they would except for fear of reprisal. When pinned down to answer specific questions about some of the more reprehensible “radical” thoughts—-such as wishing all Jews would return to Israel so they could be killed in one place and Muslims would not have to hunt them down all over the world to kill them, as one example—-they admit to believing the same thing. So-called “moderate” Muslims were filmed doing the Monkey Dance Of Joy as the twin towers fell. Unless Islam has degenerated into a pick-and-choose religion, like the new Cafeteria Catholicism practiced by such as Pelosi, to BE a Muslim means by definition believing in the command to kill all non-Muslims. At the very least. I personally would define a “moderate” Muslim as one who would draw the line at killing fellow Muslims of different sects, and I am not even sure how many of those could be found if responders were honest in their answers.

    We need to find the backbone to stop treating Islam as just another religion, and recognize it as a political philosophy/religious hybrid. World domination is simply not, to me, an acceptable religious doctrine, but it sure smacks of political despotism, just with a veneer of religion draped over it. Slaughter of people with whom you do not agree was barbaric even back in barbarous times but it is totally unacceptable now, and those who practice it must, quite simply, be eliminated.

    If we lack the will to eliminate them, they must be isolated.

    • M. Noonan January 10, 2015 / 3:25 pm

      Rupert Murdoch’s Twitter account posted an opinion yesterday that the Muslims, themselves, must by action show the world that Jihadists don’t represent Islam…he was naturally condemned in some quarters for being racist. But its the truth – and every time I see a Muslim talking head making the rote declaration that the Jihadists don’t represent Islam, the question jumps out: then why aren’t the rest of the Muslims taking them out? Maybe it is only 1% of Muslims who do this – but that works out to 16 million people, and that number of people can do massive damage…and if it is 1%, then the 99% should be able to make short work of them if they really wanted to.

      To be sure, in any given human population, most will just long to stand aside from any trouble. It is hard to decide to risk what you have – this is why evil always appears to have a head start. I can imagine the Joe Muslim in Yemen: he’s poor, he’s harassed by the difficulties of just putting food on the table day to day…he’s got a wife and some kids: to decide to fight the people who are doing evil, he has to put all that at risk, including, of course, his own life. Most of the time, I’ll bet he just keeps his head down and hopes that they won’t take too much from him and that he won’t be in proximity when a U.S. Hellfire missile drops in.

      But, still, there are forces and interests in the Muslim world who should want to do something about it – and who are able to mobilize support, offer some protection and put a force on the ground to fight these guys. But it never happens. The only Muslim forces which will fight a Jihadist group are forces which are marked for destruction by the Jihadists because for one reason or another, the Jihadists consider them traitors to Islam. One can only draw the conclusion that for most Muslims, the Jihadists are on the right side, overall. That to destroy them for what they do, in general, is an offense against Islam.

  10. Amazona January 9, 2015 / 9:54 pm

    What is the motivation for “moderate” Muslims to take a side? They are doing fine right now, paying lip service to moderation while simultaneously living with the devil. (They are much like the well-to-do black people in Reverend Wright’s church, acting decent and friendly to white people and then wallowing in blind ignorant hatred when with their own.)

    Well, it might be motivating, over a long period of time, to have some nice young man desperate to get a great US education, and learn that he can’t because Uncle Abdul has the whole family banned from the US.

    So tens or even hundreds of thousands of bright and promising young Muslims in the Middle East would be condemned to lives of mediocrity, with no futures, because they are trapped in hellholes dominated by savages. That is called “consequences”. It might take three or four generations before people start to figure out they have to EARN their way into civilization and this has to be done by renouncing the primitive savagery that has dominated their religion. We can’t change people, but we can put them someplace where they pose less of a risk to us, and let them figure things out on their own.

    Would this breed more hatred? Who cares? As long as they are not allowed into this country, or in any country that wants to do business with us or other Western nations, they can seethe in impotent rage all they want to.

  11. shawny2011 January 11, 2015 / 3:41 am

    Amazona, good comment. Muslims, anywhere they inhabit, have been killing each other for centuries merely over different interpretations of the same book….. and they still are. Why would the whole world choose to ignore that history? It’s suicidal. What has changed to make countries believe that Muslims have any intention of integrating into other cultural societies. And what about threatening to destroy us do we not comprehend? Their stated goals are to advance their own laws, not obey anyone else’s. (Rather like our president if you think about it). What astounds me is that we send them (some who have killed our troops in combat) millions of our tax dollars, send them weapons, grenade launchers etc., train them how to use those weapons while our State Department issues them V.I.S.A.s to relocate here. Our so-called intelligence tracks them leaving for Syria, Yemen, Libya and allows them back into the country, allows them to operate training camps here on our soil, to recruit within their mosques, leave our borders wide open.
    If there is anything else our leadership *spit* could be doing to risk our national security or aid the cause of Muslim terrorism more, I don’t know what it would be. But I do believe that the U.N. and globalist are pushing this multiculturalism worldwide so until the people get up and push back there will be no change in the plan.

  12. shawny2011 January 11, 2015 / 4:01 am

    P.S. We’ve relinquished nearly all of our freedoms and billions of our tax dollars in the quest to secure our nation. That was a critical mistake. But those who have compromised it should face criminal charges under the Patriot Act. Those who have refused to secure our borders should be fired and sued for the damages. Those who are negotiating with terrorist, arming, aiding, funding or defending them should face the very same severe consequences any one of us would face if we did the same. They can’t have it both ways.

    • Amazona January 11, 2015 / 11:45 am

      shawny, I did a little research and found that there is no penalty for the violation of any oath of office by any sworn official in this country. The “oath of office” turns out to have meaning only for people of honor but for the rest, the huge majority, it is only a ceremonial artifact of no real significance. I think the first thing we should do is pass legislation putting teeth in the oath, and establishing penalties for violating it.

      Oh, I understand that it can be hard to pin down true penalty-worthy violations. For example, is voting for the ACA a failure to uphold the Constitution? Yes, technically it is, but I probably would not have a penalty for stupidity. Failure to secure out nation’s borders, trafficking with terrorists, failing to protect Americans at home and abroad, all ought to fall under some sort of legal and binding obligation of our elected officials, and of those they appoint.

      As for “securing our nation”, in the past few decades that has meant securing it from those who insist on governing this nation according to its own rule of law, while at the same time being obsequious to those who openly declare that they are our enemies. The shepherd does not just hope the wolf will not eat his sheep if he can convince the wolf they mean him no harm and are really very nice sheep. No, gets a gun and some big-ass guard dogs and he starts picking off the wolves who threaten his flock. He understands that wolves are predators. If there are a lot of wolves he ups his game but he does what he has to do to save his sheep. And if he won’t do that, if he whines about how “wolves are really fascinating creatures and we should learn to understand them and blah blah blah” he should be fired and replaced with someone who will do the job. When you are surrounded by predators you don’t just give speeches to show that you are willing to be prey.

      • shawny2011 January 11, 2015 / 5:14 pm

        Great analogy. I understand that a wolf cannot change his nature.or his pack mentality. He is what he is. What I fail to comprehend is when seemingly all our well paid shepherds stand around whining and continuing to make excuses for that “cute little misunderstood dog”, refusing to even recognize him for the wolf he is, much less get out their slingshots. That’s what puts us in such deep sheep dip.

    • Amazona January 11, 2015 / 12:01 pm

      France gave up national sovereignty when it allowed mini-nations to establish themselves in France, separate from French rule, refusing to speak French, and scorning everything that is French—-except any of the socialist benefits offered by this touchy-feely Leftward-sliding country.

      I am sick and tired of the whiners going on and on about the “disenfranchised” Muslims who are, supposedly, just reacting to their isolation from French society, their inability to find work, blah blah blah. Give me a break.

      Muslim cab drivers insisted on taking breaks for prayer and often refused to pick up women, or people with dogs. Yet it is the fault of the French establishment that they have a hard time finding work as cab drivers—–an occupation which is traditionally an entry point for immigrants into the economy of their adopted country. Muslims coming to France refuse to learn to speak French, and then use the resulting isolation from French society as an excuse for hating and killing. But this insanity is aided by the squishies who moan and whimper about the poor “disenfranchised” Muslims in France—( who, by the way, have chosen to make their enclaves so dangerous to non-Muslims that police do not even go there.)

      There is a place for Algerian Muslims who want to speak their own language, strictly follow the rules of their own religion, have their own form of law and justice, and scorn those who do not. It is called Algeria. There is a place in France, or at least there used to be, for Algerian Muslims who want to become French Muslims—that may not be true any more, as that well may be permanently poisoned. But the country has been very welcoming to Muslims who wanted to live in France, who were willing to learn the language and respect the customs, who were willing to participate in the French economy and live in harmony with other Frenchmen, who wanted the identify of “French Muslim”.

      I think it would be completely understandable for the French to say “enough” and clean their own house, get rid of the extremists and lay down some laws to those remaining. I’d love to see it—maybe it would inspire some of our own squishies.

  13. Amazona January 11, 2015 / 10:09 pm

    Listening to some of the coverage of the rally in Paris today, it appeared that there is some pressure to “reform” Islam. I suppose this is a better approach than to simply write it off as a barbaric cult.

    I wonder if scholars could come up with an Islam stripped of its violence and misogyny and hatred, an Islam focused on whatever forms the basis for the “religion of peace” claim. If so, I guess that Muslims could be given the choice of swearing, upon the head of Mohammed himself, in the most serious and committed and binding way possible, that they subscribe only to Reformed Islam and renounce the elements of Old Islam that have been used to justify savagery and violent hatred, as a condition of remaining in any given country. This, and an oath to live under the laws of whatever country is chosen as a home, might provide a first step in moving away from what we see now. It would also provide a mechanism for expulsion from that country, if the person were to be found attending a mosque teaching the rejected dogma. Mostly it would force Muslims to put up or shut up.

    • M. Noonan January 11, 2015 / 11:35 pm

      I’m not sure it can be done – people speak of it as a sort of counter-part to the Reformation in Christendom in the 16th century. The thing about that – whatever one might want to think of the actual Protestants – the idea behind it was to purify Christianity of some abuses which had sprung up over the years…and even the Catholic side fully recognized the need for reform, there was just disagreement about what, exactly, amounted to reform. The problem in Islam isn’t akin to something like the sale of Indulgences – the problem is what, precisely, is Islamic?

      I know and work with a Muslim man who hails from Pakistan. Nice guy. Good co-worker. Looks after his old mother. Don’t have the slightest complaint to make about him. But then one reads the news from Pakistan and realizes that people with this same man’s background are murdering Christians for no reason, at all. Where does that come from? Is my friend at work the true Muslim, or is it the guys hacking people to pieces? Its not like I can compare it to my separated, Protestant brothers and sisters…for all our disputes about the primacy of Rome and the position of the Blessed Virgin, none of us are hacking people to pieces in the name of our religion. We can both reasonably claim to be true Christians – and in most actions, we’re going to try to do the same things (pray for people, provide charity, try to love our neighbors as ourselves, etc). It is a puzzle – and I hope it doesn’t come to a civilizational fight to the death.

      • Amazona January 12, 2015 / 1:39 am

        But those who pulled away from the Catholic Church retained the core belief system of accepting Jesus as a personal savior who died for our sins, while rejecting certain aspects of Catholic dogma. We started with one Protestant movement and that evolved into something like 1600 Protestant Christian denominations. Even the Church herself has undergone internal reforms, and formally rejected radicals, such as the Penitentes, and we have the Orthodox churches of Russia and Greece.

        It all started with one religion that was, at the time, the only form of religion based upon the acceptance of Jesus as Savior. It took a while, but it happened. Yes, if there were to be a Reform movement in Islam, it would be a little different than that in Christendom, Christians being a little less inclined to just butcher those who stepped away, but it is not an impossible feat. And the splintering of Christianity has dramatically diluted the political power of Christian religion. This would be a good outcome for Islam, as long as the reform movements were based oin rejection of the brutality, violence and hatred that drive the radicals.

        I think there has to be a middle ground between being an orthodox Muslim with beliefs in all aspects of the Koran and not being a Muslim at all, and reform would offer that compromise. If the Kill Everyone Who Doesn’t Think Like We Do aspect of Islam were to be defined as more of a political movement than a true religion, because of its goal of world domination and its agenda of genocide, those who cling to it could be more easily marginalized, isolated in their own countries, and increasingly separated by their own acts from the civilized world.

      • M. Noonan January 12, 2015 / 1:04 pm

        To be sure, those who run Islamism are just another in the very long line of people who are trying to obtain wealth and power at the expense of others. We can see it in the vast sums they hide in Western banks and the rather common stories of Islamist leaders leading, in private, lives which are not exactly that of religious devotion. Also, if dying for Islamism is the key to paradise – and if there is no free will, as Islamism teaches, because all is decreed by God – then the leaders of Islamism would be strapping on the bombs, rather than, say, sending 10 year old girls into Nigerian markets to set off the bombs. But in the minds of their followers, the leaders are religious…and I’ll bet that at least a large minority of Muslims agrees with their actions, even if they don’t actually participate. I know a lady of Armenian background who’s family lived in Egypt when she was little…and even then, at a little, Christian girl just minding her own business, she some times got told by Muslims that she was going to be killed…because she’s Christian.

Comments are closed.